His curious health challenges outside the country have implications for the image and dignity of the presidency
Whatever was responsible for President Goodluck Jonathan’s unexpected illness in London, which caused him to miss the opening of a two-day meeting of Nigeria’s Honorary International Investors’ Council (HIIC) that coincided with his 56th birthday on November 20, it is unsurprising that the incident not only generated a vigorous controversy about his lifestyle, but also raised justifiable concern about his fitness and capacity to handle the inevitable pressures of his exalted office.
Separating fact from fiction may indeed prove to be a challenging task, especially in the light of the hazy circumstances of Jonathan’s alleged indisposition, which was conveyed superficially by his special adviser on media and publicity, Reuben Abati. With the loud silence on the nature of the president’s ailment in the celebratory birthday context, it was predictable that certain observers would come up with interpretations suggesting that Jonathan had failed to recover quickly enough from the wining and dining that presumably marked his anniversary. Specifically, a particular online news portal famed for its unapologetic passion for sensationalism and dogged pursuit of “the news behind the news,” Sahara Reporters, alleged that Jonathan fell ill following a “heavy birthday party thrown to celebrate the President’s 56th birthday at his presidential suite in the InterContinental Hotel in London.”
Although, Abati described this claim as “fictional nonsense”, and categorically denied that there was such a party, the important lesson from the conflicting information is that there will always be material to fill an informational vacuum. The presidency, perhaps deservingly, therefore suffered a damaging penalty for failing to adopt a proactive approach to the development. Abati’s reactive statement, full of sound and fury against the medium, laboured fruitlessly to reverse the imagination of the public. He said of Jonathan, “It has never been his custom to celebrate birthday anniversaries and no exception was made this year”; he stressed that “there was certainly no drinking spree.”
Nevertheless, it is definitely curious that Jonathan’s illness manifested on his birthday; and even more intriguing is the fact that it was understated, leaving room for fertile conjectures. It is regrettable that the presidency’s information management unit, by omission, allowed a needless information gap that was exploited to Jonathan’s detriment.
Be that as it may, Jonathan has obviously not helped matters with his rising record of unexplained sickness in foreign lands, compounded by the fact that the complaints usually arose in the course of official business. It is noteworthy that in the last three years, he has dramatically made news on account of such health issues. In the first of these sour incidents, it must be pointed out that contrary to Abati’s defensive claim that Jonathan is traditionally unenthusiastic about celebrating birthdays, the president in October 2011, caused a stir by throwing a party to mark his wife’s birthday in Perth, Australia, while he was attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in that country. Or perhaps Abati meant that Jonathan was disinclined only when such celebration had to do strictly with himself.
On the occasion in Australia, in the aftermath of the party, Jonathan failed to show up for a scheduled Presidential Roundtable; specifically, the Nigeria/Australia Mining Roundtable where he was expected to sell the country’s mining potential. It is instructive that an Australian newspaper, The Australian, described the development, perhaps diplomatically, as “mysterious.” It was simply disgraceful, especially because there was no formal explanation. Interestingly, the shameful drama was replayed in May when Jonathan again failed to show up to give his scheduled address at the Special Assembly in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the African Union (AU), despite his arrival in the country for the historic event. There were contradictory accounts of his whereabouts and general confusion among Nigerian officials at the forum, which was a huge blow to the country’s image, given its prominence in the organisation. It goes without saying that, by his disappearing acts, Jonathan poses a security threat even to himself; for a situation where no one could account for the president’s whereabouts suggests he is not always protected and anything could happen to him.
The latest episode in London worsened the country’s embarrassment at Jonathan’s serial sickness overseas. So disturbing is the recurrence that it is pertinent to wonder whether his constitution is especially vulnerable to conditions occasioned by such change of environment. Or is it possible, as it has been suggested, that the president is actually battling with particular lifestyle problems which get acute abroad? Of course, the President is entitled to his lifestyle choices, but certainly not at the expense of his job as the country’s leader. His status, without a shred of uncertainty, carries the consequence of high responsibility which should not be trivialised by fleshly indulgence.
It is possible to contemplate other possibilities that are also worrying. Could Jonathan’s condition be a reaction to over-travelling, or work overload, or even deficient psychological stamina?
Although it must be conceded that his essential nature as a human makes him susceptible to illness, it is equally important to underline the fact that holding a public office of such significance makes his health status a public issue, and the people have a right to know. We practise a democracy that should unveil the state of health of our elected officers. The president should enjoy no exception. The health of a nation depends, to a great degree, on the health of those who govern it.
